Hi Keith,
> (CR)
> >Come on, Keith. If there is any hierarchical undemocratic top-down
> >organization, it is the modern private corporation.
> [KH:]
> Come on, Christoph. How many layers are there in the typical civil service
> department? About 30 in the English CS. How many layers in the typical
> corporation? No more than 10 in the very largest I suggest.
See, there's the "UK-centrism" again. I was thinking of the Swiss civil
service, which is rather de-centralized and uses the "subsidiarity principle",
i.e. decisions are made as low in the hierarchy as possible. And most
importantly, the direct democratic control over lower and higher levels is
pretty strong (e.g. direct referendums on projects of a certain size).
The number of layers isn't so high either -- for regional (cantonal)
purposes, about 4-6.
Compare this with a (transnational) corporation: centralized (with the
center far away), hardly any "subsidiary principle", **no democratic
control at all**, and rather *more* layers than a reasonably regional
government org. (even if it has less layers, the other points spoil
the whole thing..)
> Besides, there
> is one flow of information that is absolutely vital at all times in a
> coporation -- that is from the bottom (customer) to the top.
It seems that the corporations more and more care about shareholders
rather than about customers. The customer can easily be ignored,
especially if the corporation has a (quasi-)monopoly or a de-facto cartel.
Since there is no democratic accountability, customers (even groups of)
can't do much.
> (CR)
> >If you claim that "specialised pressure groups" are organized bottom-up,
> >you don't know modern NGOs. I know them from inside and must say they
> >have become like corporations -- arrogant apparatchiks at the top who
> >screw the basis' needs in pursuit of their own career and profits.
> [KH:]
> I agree. Once they reach a certain age they fossilise and become
> hierarchies in the same way and starts losing touch with the people.
> Fortunately, when that happens another pressure group usually forms in the
> vacuum and resumes the vital link with the public.
Forming a new one is hardly possible when the established one(s) in that
field have monopolized the public perception and subsidies (esp. in the EU).
> (CR)
> >Media and opinion polls? Same game.
>
> Don't understand you here.
Since they are also corporations (and/or owned by industry corporations),
the media and pollsters *also* have "arrogant apparatchiks at the top who
screw the basis' needs in pursuit of their own career and profits."
(and worse, the top spinmeisters are there...) Just my observation...
> (CR)
> >Now to your "Summary" (quotations, actually) on Climate Change:
...
> You can't quote isolated examples -- not yet, anyway, until the overall
> picture is much better known than now.
Those weren't "isolated examples", just a very few from a vast number
of similar examples that abound these days. The increase is significant.
> It depends on where you look at the world. In Alaska, the Columbia glacier
> is retreating. But Greenland has been getting colder. The edge of the
> Antarctic Peninsula is retreating, but temperatures at the South Pole have
> plunged to 108� F, the lowest for 40 years.
See, this confirms my point that the problem is not "a little warmth", but
increased extremes to both sides (hotter/colder, more/less rain, wind etc.).
> Another quote:
> <<<<
> Contrary to conventional wisdom and the predictions of cimputer models, the
> Earth's climate has not warmed appreciable in the last two decades --
> probably not since about 1940. The evidence (from tree rings around the
> world) is abundant.
> >>>>
> Fred Singer, President of the Science and environmental Policy Foundation.
No comment necessary on a notorious fossil-fuel PR hack like Fred Singer...
Chris
